hi all,
quick question...
why do some companies trade at higher EBITDA multiples than others? for instance, TMT is supposed to be the highest, while something like industrials generally trade at 4x-6x
also, ive noticed that companies with higher ebitda margins trade at higher multiples... why is that?
thanks.
| +218 | UBS Tech MD hires Son (from no-name college) as an Intern | 34 | 1h |
| +161 | Mayday, Mayday: Key UBS Leaders (Former Barclays MDs) Abandoning Ship | 28 | 2d |
| +157 | WTF IS THIS COMPETITON | 56 | 9h |
| +114 | Is banking in the south more sustainable? | 26 | 1d |
| +84 | The Intern Starter Pack | 14 | 20h |
| +74 | Current State of the League Tables | 27 | 19h |
| +43 | Perella Weinberg to Cut 10% of Workforce, Including Partners | 31 | 6h |
| +42 | [Official] 2026 IB Analyst Bonus Megathread (with 2025 Consolidated Pay and Perks/Benefits) | 8 | 9h |
| +38 | UBS Groups Ranked by Future Outlook | 20 | 11h |
| +32 | PWP Layoffs????? | 18 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Some industries trade at higher EBITDA multiples than others (e.g. TMT vs industrials) because they are perceived to have better growth prospects.
Not sure if this is the case, but companies with higher EBITDA margins might trade at higher multiples because a greater percentage of earnings is being re-invested back into the business. EBITDA margin measures the extent to which cash operating expenses use up revenue, so companies with higher EBITDA margins have more money being used for actual operating and business expenses rather than leakage to pay interest on debt or taxes.
Yes, companies trading at higher multiples, all else equal are perceived to have higher growth prospects. I believe this is actually true about all multiples... aka a tech company may trade at a much higher P/E multiple than a pharmaceutical company because their earnings will grow faster... I could be wrong though. Anyone else?
The most significant factor driving EBITDA multiples is indeed growth prospects. Other factors include risk (other things being equal "OTBE", the lower the risk, the higher the multiple), size (OTBE, larger the company, higher the multiple), capex (OTBE, lower the capex, higher the multiple), working capital (OTBE, lower the working cap, higher the multiple), etc. EBITDA margins should not have an effect on EBITDA multiple but do have a large impact on a Revenue multiple.
I would argue that the overall state of the economy coupled with the industry is the most important factor. It is true that tech companies tend to trade at higher multiples, but its the financing availability and the overall risk that drives the multiples. Things such as deal size, CapX, and WC play roles as well.
Boutique, you're correct that overall market conditions (credit conditions, to be more precise) drive EBITDA multiples but the question being asked is why are companies in one industry different than those in another.
Why would credit conditions and financing availability drive multiples for firms that depend on little to no debt?
Simply put, the characteristics that drive multiples are often the same that drive cash flows: growth, risk, net investments, ROIC
Therefore, to see why multiples differ from one industry to another, look at these underlying drivers and to get a better understanding.
3 (related) reasons why credit conditions significantly impact the general level of multiples 1. multiples are relative so just because 1 company doesn't have debt doesn't mean that a comp doesn't. and even in an industry that doesn't have a lot of debt (say, tech) companies are still implicitly valued relative to companies in other industries. 2. valuation is ultimately what someone is willing to pay, right? what someone is willing to pay is dependent on how much they can pay which is dependent on how much they can borrow and even if they don't borrow it is still dependent on their cost of capital, which brings up 3. think about WACC. whats your CAPM formula? even if you could argue a company's optimal capital structure has no debt, your cost of equity is still impacted by credit conditions (risk free rate and equity risk premium). i do agree with you that a good way of thinking about what drives multiples is to think about the factors that go into a DCF.
Also consider whether the firm acquiring is a financial buyer or a strategic one. The strategic buyer is usually willing to pay more.
that's actually not true. during the LBO boom of recent years, PE firms were often able to pay more and strategics got priced out.
ex-banker is right -- during the LBO boom, many strategic buyers were outbid by sponsors willing to pay outrageous prices.
simply put, ebitda multiples are a function of growth and perceived risk (both on a company and industry level). it all comes down to what you're paying and what you're expecting to get in return.
Startup Biotech Ebitda Multiple (Originally Posted: 01/14/2011)
Just wanted to clarify a simple dcf situation. Let's say a startup biotech company just started getting some revenues. When doing a DCF analysis and finding the terminal value, you would most likely use an ebitda multiple, correct? If so, what would be an appropriate ebitda multiple for startup biotech companies? I would assume it would be pretty high- in the teens.
Thanks.
Most start-ups (technology companies in particular) trade off a multiple of revenue. Revenue multiples are used because these business typically have very little, if any, EBITDA. If you are using a 10 year DCF and you have a significant amount of EBITDA in your last year then an EBITDA multiple might be fine. A multiple somewhere in the mid to high teens is probably fair provided the business is still growing rapidly.
Thanks
can someone explain to me this whole EBITDA multiple/terminal value based valuation stuff? (Originally Posted: 08/22/2010)
I'm from a non-finance background, and am looking at a valuation model a friend gave to me. I understand the basic idea and intuition behind the DCF method, where you project unlevered FCF a few years out and discount by WACC....in the model my friend gave me, this DCF is done, but below it, there is a section called "Terminal Value Methods" (which seems to imply this is an alternate to DCF?)...my friend has taken the comps of this company, and found the average EV/EBITDA for them to be 12, and he simply takes this number and multiplies it by the "Exit Year EBITDA" (which is the EBITDA for the last year for which he has projected FCF), and gets a "terminal value"...what does this number even mean?
can someone explain how a DCF and the EBITDA multiple based methods are tied together INTUITIVELY (and mathematically too, if possible)? to me, this EBITDA multiple method seems rather crude and imprecise, while DCF seems atleast somewhat more thorough...
Nostrum quidem ut quo qui qui molestiae similique hic. Sapiente occaecati animi architecto laboriosam eos voluptas totam hic. Et recusandae maxime in officia voluptas deleniti recusandae. Quae sit quidem ipsum. Voluptatum a error atque occaecati.
Accusamus voluptatum vel minima dolor. Voluptatem adipisci nihil beatae ut vel. Delectus voluptatem excepturi veniam. Iste nesciunt sed vel qui nulla sint. Sint ducimus tempore ut ratione maxime et. Sunt voluptate eveniet suscipit repellat autem et.
Qui dolorem id consequatur. Necessitatibus voluptas quaerat qui aperiam sit doloribus tempora numquam. Cupiditate eligendi consectetur dolores quas tenetur dolor nisi mollitia. Eaque et aperiam nulla saepe vel architecto eius sit. Atque eius dolorem porro saepe facere sint. Ipsa amet provident autem earum vel quod laborum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...